NationStates

Greed and Death wrote:

San Lumen wrote:And that barely covers the shortfall from the theatre industry going belly up which means the entire tourism industry collapses and with it the cities economy and bankruptcy still occurs

Well I think once this is over your best bet is to move to Texas.

Ive thought about it. Austin is where Id go if I moved there.

San Lumen wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:And nothing of value was lost

Pardon me? Nothing of value?

That appears to be what he said, yes.

San Lumen wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:
Well I think once this is over your best bet is to move to Texas.

Ive thought about it. Austin is where Id go if I moved there.

Only hipsters go to Austin. You want Dallas we have the stable economy and good finance jobs your mother would approve of.

San Lumen wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:
Yeah you are right rent wont go down in New York.

New York City is soon going to be shell of its former self if our leaders don't wake up soon

Better start cutting budgets where you can. For example, does the NYPD really need $89 billion a year?

Kannap wrote:

San Lumen wrote:New York City is soon going to be shell of its former self if our leaders don't wake up soon

Better start cutting budgets where you can. For example, does the NYPD really need $89 billion a year?

Yes.

So next up education and arts.

Kannap wrote:

San Lumen wrote:New York City is soon going to be shell of its former self if our leaders don't wake up soon

Better start cutting budgets where you can. For example, does the NYPD really need $89 billion a year?

It doesn't. I hate to say it this way (and trust me, people might take this the completely the wrong way), but there's been a significant amount of investment since 9/11 into counter-terrorism and counter-terrorism surveillance by the NYPD. These functions are definitely more than covered by Federal authorities and represent a massive bloat to the NYPD's mission and budget.

Kannap wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Pardon me? Nothing of value?

That appears to be what he said, yes.

and its quite an insulting statement,. if New York City's economy collapsed the entire us economy would be affected.

Organized States wrote:

Kannap wrote:
Better start cutting budgets where you can. For example, does the NYPD really need $89 billion a year?

It doesn't. I hate to say it this way (and trust me, people might take this the completely the wrong way), but there's been a significant amount of investment since 9/11 into counter-terrorism and counter-terrorism surveillance by the NYPD. These functions are definitely more than covered by Federal authorities and represent a massive bloat to the NYPD's mission and budget.

Both wrong.

NYPD's budget is only 10 billion and half of that is for pensions and other benefits.

https://cbcny.org/research/seven-facts- ... for%20debt

I tend to keep quiet on these sorts of threads as part of my attempts to say remotely sane, but am I the only person who's really beginning to think the USA should consider criminalizing the dissemination (read: writing, posting online, printing, saying over a means of communication) of anything contrary to CDC and/or current federal/state/local government emergency health orders?

Slippery slope yes but this is an emergency after all. They restricted freedom of speech during World War II for example. Oh, that's a Canadan poster. First inoffensive one I could find.

Greed and Death wrote:

Organized States wrote:It doesn't. I hate to say it this way (and trust me, people might take this the completely the wrong way), but there's been a significant amount of investment since 9/11 into counter-terrorism and counter-terrorism surveillance by the NYPD. These functions are definitely more than covered by Federal authorities and represent a massive bloat to the NYPD's mission and budget.

Both wrong.

NYPD's budget is only 10 billion and half of that is for pensions and other benefits.

https://cbcny.org/research/seven-facts- ... for%20debt

It doesn't change the fact that the NYPD has a massive counter-terrorism and intelligence infrastructure that has yet to produce an actual lead and encompasses a huge amount of money outside of the Department's primary policing and emergency response mission. Regardless of the size of the NYPD's budget, they need to be taking a serious look as to what they really need in the Department.

They've even admitted it too.

San Lumen wrote:

Post War America wrote:
States often do fund projects for reasons other than generating revenue. Germany subsidizes filmmaking for cultural as well as monetary reasons, and the US as much as it nominally hates public spending dumps about three quarters of a trillion dollars every year into the financial black hole that is its Armed Forces.

A theatre production or concert should therefore be unprofitable and not have the money to pay the production costs or the salaries of those involved in the show? Its as if your trying to espouse an ideology here and refuse to listen to facts and deny reality.

No sir I'm saying that with state backing whether or not they turn a profit would be irrelevant. If the do great, if not... at least they still provide value to culture.

As for ideology I have fairly consistently espoused the notion that things should not be valued solely on their ability to generate profits for Capitalists. This is not an unrealistic notion either as Capitalism has existed for only a few hundred years at most, and even broader systemic hierarchies have dominated for a small percentage of humanity's time on Ear th. What I fail to grasp is how you can be so bull headed as to ignore this and any proposal other than returning to what you seek normal as either unrealistic or apocalyptic in nature.

San Lumen wrote:

Kannap wrote:
That appears to be what he said, yes.

and its quite an insulting statement,. if New York City's economy collapsed the entire us economy would be affected.

Yes New York is a great city to visit. Too crowded and expensive to live in. I actually think I see more of the city visiting than my classmates who practice law there.

Post War America wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
A theatre production or concert should therefore be unprofitable and not have the money to pay the production costs or the salaries of those involved in the show? Its as if your trying to espouse an ideology here and refuse to listen to facts and deny reality.

No sir I'm saying that with state backing whether or not they turn a profit would be irrelevant. If the do great, if not... at least they still provide value to culture.

As for ideology I have fairly consistently espoused the notion that things should not be valued solely on their ability to generate profits for Capitalists. This is not an unrealistic notion either as Capitalism has existed for only a few hundred years at most, and even broader systemic hierarchies have dominated for a small percentage of humanity's time on Ear th. What I fail to grasp is how you can be so bull headed as to ignore this and any proposal other than returning to what you seek normal as either unrealistic or apocalyptic in nature.

And Australian Republic already explained to you how that is not feasible

This is what they wrote: And where's the state gonna get the money? Concerts and big events bring in tourism. Without them, the entire industry would be screwed, which would have a flow on effect on the whole damned economy through the tourism multiplier effect. I can explain the tourism multiplier effect if you want. No government would sibsidise a concert from a foreign musician if this concert will bring less money to the economy than it otherwise would have

San Lumen wrote:

Kannap wrote:
For theatres to reopen without social distancing, people will have to die and spread the virus. How many people dying and having the virus is acceptable for these places to reopen?

They wont be because they can't make a profit therefore Billy is hung out to dry by the government because they wont give the arts a penny. He has to possibly give up on his career and the one place he can be himself and go work a desk job completely miserable.

The government doesn't have millions of dollars for everything. If the economy remains closed indefinitely, sooner or later, the economy will turn to shit, and we'll have another great depression. Soon, people won't be able to afford to go to restaurants or buy luxury items. Soon, people won't be able to afford to go on holidays. Then all restaurant employees are fucked, and all accommodation providers are fucked. Small businesses are fucked, and everybody's fucked. The government doesn't have an unlimited budget to give to the arts

Australian rePublic wrote:

San Lumen wrote:They wont be because they can't make a profit therefore Billy is hung out to dry by the government because they wont give the arts a penny. He has to possibly give up on his career and the one place he can be himself and go work a desk job completely miserable.

The government doesn't have millions of dollars for everything. If the economy remains closed indefinitely, sooner or later, the economy will turn to shit, and we'll have another great depression. Soon, people won't be able to afford to go to restaurants or buy luxury items. Soon, people won't be able to afford to go on holidays. Then all restaurant employees are fucked, and all accommodation providers are fucked. Small businesses are fucked, and everybody's fucked. The government doesn't have an unlimited budget to give to the arts

I dont disagree with you but some dont want to hear that and think social distancing, limited capacity and banning large events is feasible for as long we want to be

San Lumen wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:The government doesn't have millions of dollars for everything. If the economy remains closed indefinitely, sooner or later, the economy will turn to shit, and we'll have another great depression. Soon, people won't be able to afford to go to restaurants or buy luxury items. Soon, people won't be able to afford to go on holidays. Then all restaurant employees are fucked, and all accommodation providers are fucked. Small businesses are fucked, and everybody's fucked. The government doesn't have an unlimited budget to give to the arts

I dont disagree with you but some dont want to hear that and think social distancing, limited capacity and banning large events is feasible for as long we want to be

See, your mistake is thinking we want to do all this shit. Welcome to the real world, its not all sunshine and daisies and sometimes you have to make hard decisions, sometimes you have to suck it up and deal with mild inconvenience for a short while. If face masks, social distancing, limited capacity, and the lack of large crowded events for the next year until we have a vaccine is what it takes to minimize the spread and death toll of this virus, then so be it.

Kannap wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
I dont disagree with you but some dont want to hear that and think social distancing, limited capacity and banning large events is feasible for as long we want to be

See, your mistake is thinking we want to do all this shit. Welcome to the real world, its not all sunshine and daisies and sometimes you have to make hard decisions, sometimes you have to suck it up and deal with mild inconvenience for a short while. If face masks, social distancing, limited capacity, and the lack of large crowded events for the next year until we have a vaccine is what it takes to minimize the spread and death toll of this virus, then so be it.

That's if we can get a vaccine which im hopeful we can. The CDC said the article that sparked this conversation is nonsense

San Lumen wrote:

Post War America wrote:
No sir I'm saying that with state backing whether or not they turn a profit would be irrelevant. If the do great, if not... at least they still provide value to culture.

As for ideology I have fairly consistently espoused the notion that things should not be valued solely on their ability to generate profits for Capitalists. This is not an unrealistic notion either as Capitalism has existed for only a few hundred years at most, and even broader systemic hierarchies have dominated for a small percentage of humanity's time on Ear th. What I fail to grasp is how you can be so bull headed as to ignore this and any proposal other than returning to what you seek normal as either unrealistic or apocalyptic in nature.

And Australian Republic already explained to you how that is not feasible

This is what they wrote: And where's the state gonna get the money? Concerts and big events bring in tourism. Without them, the entire industry would be screwed, which would have a flow on effect on the whole damned economy through the tourism multiplier effect. I can explain the tourism multiplier effect if you want. No government would sibsidise a concert from a foreign musician if this concert will bring less money to the economy than it otherwise would have

It seems you are a master of ignoring inconvenient points once again. The whole fucking point of state subsidies is to keep public goods that cannot generate a profit operating. As the US government is the owner of a sovereign fiat currency, it literally has however much money it needs to have because quite frankly, no debt holder on planet Earth is going to try and call the US' debt, and most other countries that use the dollar couldn't stand up to a US invasion. Its a pretty similar situation with the RMB, the Pound Sterling, and the Euro at the very least.

To put it even more fucking bluntly, the broader systemic change I keep pushing is one where money itself would be a totally irrelevant concept, and I am merely trying to come up with ways to preserve the system with the smallest changes possible rather than tossing the whole god damn thing out and establishing a post-capitalist society. I am doing this because apparently you are to intellectually lazy to come up solutions on your own and rather than contribute anything productive to this fucking discussion you insist on whinging about the end of the god damn world because certain industries you like are facing, entirely avoidable, hard times, and poopooing any possible fucking solutions.

San Lumen wrote:

Kannap wrote:
See, your mistake is thinking we want to do all this shit. Welcome to the real world, its not all sunshine and daisies and sometimes you have to make hard decisions, sometimes you have to suck it up and deal with mild inconvenience for a short while. If face masks, social distancing, limited capacity, and the lack of large crowded events for the next year until we have a vaccine is what it takes to minimize the spread and death toll of this virus, then so be it.

That's if we can get a vaccine which im hopeful we can. The CDC said the article that sparked this conversation is nonsense

If we can't get a vaccine this will become a normal thing and life expectancy drops by 10 to 20 years.

San Lumen wrote:

Post War America wrote:
No sir I'm saying that with state backing whether or not they turn a profit would be irrelevant. If the do great, if not... at least they still provide value to culture.

As for ideology I have fairly consistently espoused the notion that things should not be valued solely on their ability to generate profits for Capitalists. This is not an unrealistic notion either as Capitalism has existed for only a few hundred years at most, and even broader systemic hierarchies have dominated for a small percentage of humanity's time on Ear th. What I fail to grasp is how you can be so bull headed as to ignore this and any proposal other than returning to what you seek normal as either unrealistic or apocalyptic in nature.

And Australian Republic already explained to you how that is not feasible

This is what they wrote: And where's the state gonna get the money? Concerts and big events bring in tourism. Without them, the entire industry would be screwed, which would have a flow on effect on the whole damned economy through the tourism multiplier effect. I can explain the tourism multiplier effect if you want. No government would sibsidise a concert from a foreign musician if this concert will bring less money to the economy than it otherwise would have

Looks like I'm gonna have to explain the tourism multiplier effect.

Alright, here we go. Let's use an example, because the real world is insanely more complicated, so we'll use an example country. Let's call it Sipti. Sipti is a city-state. Spiti's currency is the Shipti Here's how the tourism multiplier effect works for Sipti:

Bob visits Sipti. Bob spends 200 Shipti on accommodation. This means that the hotel get 200 shipti from Bob. Let's say that 50 Shipti are used for Bob's expenses (I'll get back to that later), whilst the remaining 150 Shipti are used for profits and paying staff. Now the owner of the hotel in Shipti, and the staff, will now have 150 shipti to take to take home. That's 150 shipti being spent in shops. Now let's say that 100 shipti is distributed to owners and employees of that shop. The owners of that shop will spend it at other shops.

That's not all. Bob has living expenses whilst in Sipti. Let's say Bob decides to spend 100 shipti in restaurants. The owners and employees of those restaurants receive 75 shipti. That 75 shipti gets spent in local shops, restaurants, etc.

Let's say that Bob spends an additional 150 shipti on food, souvineers, and miscellaneous. That 150 sees 100 go to owners and employees of shops.

So what about the extra 50 shipti that Bob spent at the hotel? The extra 25 that Bob spent at restaurants? What about the extra 50 that bob spent at souvenir shops etc? Let's say 100 of that extra 125 shipti is used to pay for toilet paper, light bulbs, food, etc.

These suppliers of toilet paper, food, light bulbs, etc. have more money for their employees, which also feeds into the economy.

The remaining 25 shipti is used for structural repairs. This means that there are more carpenters who are able to spend more in the Sipti shops. The shop keepers and employees in Sipti will benefit from the extra money given to the carpenters. As will the carpenters' suppliers.

Now those shop keepers will have additional money to spend at additional shops.

Rince and repeat for many cycles.

Now, all of this assumes that Sipti imports everything. If Sipti grows their own food, and manufacturers their own souvenirs, etc. it would mean that that 500 shipti has even further than that.

That's how the tourism multiplier effect works.

Post War America wrote:

San Lumen wrote:And Australian Republic already explained to you how that is not feasible

This is what they wrote: And where's the state gonna get the money? Concerts and big events bring in tourism. Without them, the entire industry would be screwed, which would have a flow on effect on the whole damned economy through the tourism multiplier effect. I can explain the tourism multiplier effect if you want. No government would sibsidise a concert from a foreign musician if this concert will bring less money to the economy than it otherwise would have

It seems you are a master of ignoring inconvenient points once again. The whole fucking point of state subsidies is to keep public goods that cannot generate a profit operating. As the US government is the owner of a sovereign fiat currency, it literally has however much money it needs to have because quite frankly, no debt holder on planet Earth is going to try and call the US' debt, and most other countries that use the dollar couldn't stand up to a US invasion. Its a pretty similar situation with the RMB, the Pound Sterling, and the Euro at the very least.

To put it even more fucking bluntly, the broader systemic change I keep pushing is one where money itself would be a totally irrelevant concept, and I am merely trying to come up with ways to preserve the system with the smallest changes possible rather than tossing the whole god damn thing out and establishing a post-capitalist society. I am doing this because apparently you are to intellectually lazy to come up solutions on your own and rather than contribute anything productive to this fucking discussion you insist on whinging about the end of the god damn world because certain industries you like are facing, entirely avoidable, hard times, and poopooing any possible fucking solutions.

And the solution you proposed is not feasible but you chose to ignore and instead espouse your ideology and not listen to facts.

San Lumen wrote:

Post War America wrote:
It seems you are a master of ignoring inconvenient points once again. The whole fucking point of state subsidies is to keep public goods that cannot generate a profit operating. As the US government is the owner of a sovereign fiat currency, it literally has however much money it needs to have because quite frankly, no debt holder on planet Earth is going to try and call the US' debt, and most other countries that use the dollar couldn't stand up to a US invasion. Its a pretty similar situation with the RMB, the Pound Sterling, and the Euro at the very least.

To put it even more fucking bluntly, the broader systemic change I keep pushing is one where money itself would be a totally irrelevant concept, and I am merely trying to come up with ways to preserve the system with the smallest changes possible rather than tossing the whole god damn thing out and establishing a post-capitalist society. I am doing this because apparently you are to intellectually lazy to come up solutions on your own and rather than contribute anything productive to this fucking discussion you insist on whinging about the end of the god damn world because certain industries you like are facing, entirely avoidable, hard times, and poopooing any possible fucking solutions.

And the solution you proposed is not feasible but you chose to ignore and instead espouse your ideology and not listen to facts.

That's because your facts rely on a solely rudimentary understanding of economics that I moved past while I was still a college undergrad, and presuppose that the underlying system is the only one that can exist. I'm willing to play your game with the latter, but I'm getting sick of the former.

Post War America wrote:

San Lumen wrote:And Australian Republic already explained to you how that is not feasible

This is what they wrote: And where's the state gonna get the money? Concerts and big events bring in tourism. Without them, the entire industry would be screwed, which would have a flow on effect on the whole damned economy through the tourism multiplier effect. I can explain the tourism multiplier effect if you want. No government would sibsidise a concert from a foreign musician if this concert will bring less money to the economy than it otherwise would have

It seems you are a master of ignoring inconvenient points once again. The whole fucking point of state subsidies is to keep public goods that cannot generate a profit operating. As the US government is the owner of a sovereign fiat currency, it literally has however much money it needs to have because quite frankly, no debt holder on planet Earth is going to try and call the US' debt, and most other countries that use the dollar couldn't stand up to a US invasion. Its a pretty similar situation with the RMB, the Pound Sterling, and the Euro at the very least.

To put it even more fucking bluntly, the broader systemic change I keep pushing is one where money itself would be a totally irrelevant concept, and I am merely trying to come up with ways to preserve the system with the smallest changes possible rather than tossing the whole god damn thing out and establishing a post-capitalist society. I am doing this because apparently you are to intellectually lazy to come up solutions on your own and rather than contribute anything productive to this fucking discussion you insist on whinging about the end of the god damn world because certain industries you like are facing, entirely avoidable, hard times, and poopooing any possible fucking solutions.

And where are you gonna get the money from? No country has infinite coffers

Australian rePublic wrote:

Post War America wrote:
It seems you are a master of ignoring inconvenient points once again. The whole fucking point of state subsidies is to keep public goods that cannot generate a profit operating. As the US government is the owner of a sovereign fiat currency, it literally has however much money it needs to have because quite frankly, no debt holder on planet Earth is going to try and call the US' debt, and most other countries that use the dollar couldn't stand up to a US invasion. Its a pretty similar situation with the RMB, the Pound Sterling, and the Euro at the very least.

To put it even more fucking bluntly, the broader systemic change I keep pushing is one where money itself would be a totally irrelevant concept, and I am merely trying to come up with ways to preserve the system with the smallest changes possible rather than tossing the whole god damn thing out and establishing a post-capitalist society. I am doing this because apparently you are to intellectually lazy to come up solutions on your own and rather than contribute anything productive to this fucking discussion you insist on whinging about the end of the god damn world because certain industries you like are facing, entirely avoidable, hard times, and poopooing any possible fucking solutions.

And where are you gonna get the money from? No country has infinite coffers

Most countries operate with a fiat currency you know. That means they can print additional money in situations where the economy needs additional spending. For somebody who insists on quoting out of their Econ textbook I'm surprised you haven't read that yet.

Post War America wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:And where are you gonna get the money from? No country has infinite coffers

Most countries operate with a fiat currency you know. That means they can print additional money in situations where the economy needs additional spending. For somebody who insists on quoting out of their Econ textbook I'm surprised you haven't read that yet.

and do you understand the concept of the tourism multiplier which Australian Republic explained beautifully or are you going to wave it away as well with some unfeasible solution?